9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (2) TMI 51X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IOC, Irugur (Appeal No. E/862/04) 28-9-96 to 3/99 1,47,39,498/- 3. BPCL, Sankaridurg (Appeal No. E/1123/04 9/97 to 2/99 1,20,00,306/- 2. 'The facts are that the depots of the appellants are registered with the Central Excise Department as dealers for sale of High Speed Diesel Oil, Motor Spirit, Superior Kerosene Oil etc. except the out-let of BPCL which is not registered. They are receiving non-duty paid and duty paid products except BPCL which deals with only duty paid products. Whenever the administered price or of duty is raised, the same is implemented also in respect of duty paid stocks with the appellants and those in transit to the appellants' depots. The excess amount so realized is not credited to the Government. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Meerut, 2002 (146) E.L.T. 646 (Tri.-Del) (f) CBEC's Circular No. 6/40/2000-CX. I, dated 7-11-2000 5. The learned JCDR argued that the impugned amount had been collected as representing duty of excise, that the appellants owned refinery and were manufacturers. He submitted that the impugned orders deserved to be sustained. 6. We have carefully considered submissions and gone through the case records. There is no finding in any of the impugned orders that any of the appellants had manufactured the goods in respect of which demand has been raised. HPCL had sold the impugned products under the cover of invoices which not reflected the excess amount collected as excise duty. As regards IOCL, there is no clear finding on this aspect. BPCL ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not liable to pay duty under Section 11D Bharat Petroleum Corpn.Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut, 2002 (146) EL.T. 646 (Tri - Del). The Board's Circular cited is also to the same effect. As per the following judicial authorities, only such amounts collected as representing duty of excise in any manner can be demanded under Section 11D. (a) HPCL Ltd. v. CCE, Aurangabad, 2003 (162) E.L.T. 391 (Tri.-Mum.) (b) BPCL Ltd. v. CCE, Raipur, 2002 (144) E.L.T. 672 (Tri.-Del.) (c) BPCL v. CCE, 2003 (158) E.L.T. 833 (Tri.-Mum.)) (Revenue's appeal against the above decision dismissed by Supreme Court as reported in 2004 (172) E.L.T. A-133 (S.C.) 9. In view of our above discussion, we do not find any merit in the impugned orders. Accordingly we set aside the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
